Firearm Restraining Order Law Allows Family Members to Request Gun Seizure

On a warm spring night in Santa Barbara, 22-year-old Elliott O. Rodger went on a killing spree, fatally shooting six people and injuring several others before turning the gun on himself. In a rambling video manifesto published by Rodger just before the killings, he called himself a "kissless virgin" and raged against the young women who rejected him:

"And girls. All I've ever wanted was to love you and to be loved by you. I've wanted a girlfriend, I've wanted sex, I've wanted love, affection, adoration. You think I'm unworthy of it. That's a crime that can never be forgiven. If I can't have you, girls, I will destroy you."

Rodger was able to carry out the mass shooting with legally purchased guns, despite his family's concerns and despite several run-ins with law enforcement prior to the shooting spree. Reports say that authorities made contact with Rodger three times in the months before the shooting, each incident marking strange behavior:

• Less than a year before the shootings, Rodger reported being a victim of assault, but sheriff's deputies determined that he was actually the instigator of the altercation.
• At the beginning of the year, Rodger made a citizen's arrest and called police claiming that a roommate stole three candles with a total value of $22.
• Less than a month prior to his killing spree, law enforcement checked on Rodger after a concerned friend called to report his behavior and his mother gave police concerning information.

Despite concerns from family and friends, Rodger was able to keep his guns.

Now, a new law instigated by the Isla Vista killings has been passed intending to prevent a similar act of violence.

Under the new California law, family members concerned about the mental health or stability of their loved ones can request a court order seeking the seizure of firearms.

Josh Horwitz, the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence says of the law, "Family members are the ones who most acutely understand when their loved ones are in a dangerous situation. Now, when they see dangerous behavior - whether because of substance abuse or a mental health issue or a traumatic brain injury - a court can act."

The process for petitioning for the seizure of weapons from a unstable family member, officials say, is similar to the process for petitioning for a Victims Protective Order.

Opponents of the law say that while everyone wants to prevent mass shootings, there is no evidence that the new measure would actually work. Family members may not recognize dangerous behaviors and report them. Shootings may be carried out with stolen or illegally purchased guns. As in the case of Sandy Hook Elementary shooter Adam Lanza, guns legally owned by a mentally healthy individual may be taken by an unstable family member.

In addition to there being no guarantees that such a measure would work, say opponents, the law allows the risk of infringing on an individual's right to bear arms. It is possible that people who pose no danger to themselves or others will be deprived of their right to defend themselves when family members step in to have their guns taken away.

What do you think? Is the California law a step in the right direction or is it a band-aid measure that gives a false sense of security? Is it necessary in protecting the public safety from deranged individuals, or is it a dangerous and unnecessary restriction of personal liberties?